Well, games have definitely started to use 8 threads (and thats why AMDs FX 83xx chips fare so well in last 2 years).
So 4c/8t Ryzen might be really interesting product, IMO it wont be priced more than i5 and all Ryzen CPUs are unclocked so you can OC them as much as you like.
CPU arena might get pretty interesting soon
(for all those who are thinking of buying PC, just the same advice as it was 6 month ago: dont buy new stuff month or so before new stuff launches unless your PC died and yuo absolutely need to buy something right this moment lol)
Comments
This time it will be different, I promise!
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Nope. The game actually HAS to be programmed to be threaded or not. Windows just manages the threads.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/virtual-reality-smell-porn_us_587d1c16e4b09281d0ebf521
But appears my wait is over.
--John Ruskin
And just ask those who bought old gen GPU month before new gen released how badly they fared lol
Yeah, every time you start an application Windows rolls D12 to see how many threads it will use, you nailed it its legit man!
I usually upgrade when I feel the performance improvement will be significant enough to be worth the expense. With flight sims you're always chasing the dragon. With all the candy, you can bring any system to its knees. Better the system the more candy
I sincerely hope Ryzen is great.
If it kicks ass I'll surely build one, sooner rather than later
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
First: I am not in front of my Windows machine right now, but I seem to recall doing this recently, and it was actually pretty staggering the number of threads that an application does spawn. On my OS X laptop right now, Chrome is using 45 threads, Mail is using 23 threads, and the kernel has 143 threads open right now. Now, that is OS X, but I seem to recall Windows not being all that dissimilar. That's on a i7-4770HQ CPU, and despite the system having 1,522 threads open across 342 active processes (OS X tells you exactly that information), the system is just chugging along at a 1.08% CPU utilization
Just because a thread is created doesn't mean it needs a dedicated CPU core, which I think it the point Malabooga and a lot of people are making here. Most threads just sit there, dormant, waiting for whatever data or trigger they need in order to do whatever they are supposed to be doing. Making more threads just for the purpose of making threads doesn't make anything faster, and can actually make a process slower.
The second part, and this only peripherally touches on the topic: Windows 10 and DX12 have been out for a bit over a year and a half now. I still don't own or play a single DX12 title to my knowledge.
And right now there is no game programmed to run on 8 threads.
I read tons of threads blaming the problems on everything from video drivers to windows 10 updates to old games not compatible with windows 10. None of the fixes worked.
I read something on Tom's Hardware about disabling some of the cores on AMD processors and even that did not work, but it got me thinking.
I remembered a fix for core parking under windows 7 and so I went into my bios and disabled core parking and have not had a single issue in 3 months.
Running an 8320 and it now runs like a dream for every game out there.
But your very much confusing Core with Thread.
I just launched Battle.Net and WoW on my OS X machine.
Battle.Net by itself spawned 50 threads.
Just sitting at the login screen, WoW spawned 28 threads.
Loading into the world, WoW peaked at 290 threads.
Most of those threads are just sitting around waiting on data.
What you mean is "disable cores on your CPU and see what happens". The number of threads won't change, but the resources available to handle those threads will.
No.
You're using the wrong term, you should use term core instead of thread.
Term core is used for counting how many threads a processor can run at once, for example an I5 has 4 cores. If the processor has hyperthreading, then you may want to be specific and talk about physical cores and logical cores. For example and I7 could have 4 physical cores and total of 8 logical cores thanks to hyperthreading technology.
Term thread is used for actual parts of the program that can run on a core. It's used to describe programs. You can use it to describe either actual running program (for expample my chrome is now running on 7 threads), or you can use it to describe how good multi-core support some program has.
Don't use term thread for describing the capacity of processor. Those are called cores, not threads.
I generally upgrade my graphics around every 3rd year (a bit depending on when new generations comes out) and my CPU/RAM/Motherboard every 5 years.
But then I buy rather good stuff, a high end CPU (usually last rather long for us gamers unless we play extremely CPU heavy games, compile programs, convert a lot of video or similar). A cheap low end needs to be changed far more often so as I see it don't I really earn money on cheap stuff, the good stuff is really good for 2 years and then like the cheap crap for another 3.
And also, I keep my computer clean and usually reinstall Windows at least once during that time. I use fast harddrives (SSDs nowadays, use to have raided IDE/Sata discs and a SCSI configuration earlier). And I get more memory then needed at the time I buy a new computer. All that helps a lot.
An application(ie. games) usually use way more than 4 or 8 threads(blocks of code within a process), that does not mean they need or there is benefit to run them all in parallel.